Should Artists Cash In On The Flavor Of The Month?

I used to have a problem with people "cashing in" on the current wave of social discourse or media hype, and I still do. BUT since I've started engaging with more people more often (thank extroverts), I've come to a much better understanding of the art that takes part in genuine discussions with the public.

In fact, the BEST artists do it without cashing in. They're able to channel the vibe of what everyone is thinking/feeling and add relevancy. This is why pop art spoke to me many years ago before

Get in that conversation and be genuine. It can be dangerous/scary, but it's fully in line with being an artist. Just beware of being an artist that's only there to cash in. That's for bums.

"Several Antiracist Books Are Selling Out"

https://news.yahoo.com/several-antiracist-books-selling-heres-190257794.html

"Social Media Comic Book Sales Soar During Pandemic"

https://www.wbur.org/artery/2020/06/08/social-media-comic-book-sales-soar-during-pandemic

- Mr Benja -

The Commodification Of Art Continues

There are a lot of people that aren't into the art scene (or whatever scene ), and they'll look for an easy fix for their itch. This usually means they'll end up consuming something mass-market and commodified. It's hard to win that game on creation alone. (If you can, you're in a good space.)

On eBay and other marketplaces, people are selling cheap "original" wall decor that are painted in assembly-line factories located in China, Mexico, Bangladesh, and across the US. (Or even think of art that is simply printed with embellishments.)

These items are usually copies of a style, direct facsimiles, or quick Photoshop edits. Aside from the legal and moral lameness involved, I don't think it's very good. But I understand the role it plays, and I'm not mad it it.

What you're seeing is a commodification of art on a large scale. (Notice that the image above says 24 sold.) While, I don't knock anyone that buys this stuff, I think you can do much better for yourself.

- Mr Benja -

Creatives Have All The Power

In a world abuzz of social media discussion, we seem to forget that creatives have the power. I forget this all the time. While there's a lot of extremely relevant marketing discussion going on, it's mostly coming from the marketing people that don't specialize in content creation. That's the job of the creator, and it's a power that we should be tapping into much more.

We complain about social media, but it's our weapon moreso than thei

Say you're a writer. It's your place to create 60,000 words for a novel. You've got a lot of work to do in order to create a coherent piece of work. On the other side, it's the marketer's/advertiser's job to make 20-100 words of fantabulous copy and spin that into a multitude of views for your 60,000 words.

While this might not seem fair to you, please realize that you just wrote 60,000 words. You can *probably* figure out a way to write 20-100 and spread it out. And even if you aren't very good at creating those 20-100 words, the really hard part is getting over mental blocks, putting those words out, and convincing people to listen.

But honestly, that part is much easier.

Dive in.
Learn from others.
Get good at talking about your work.
Don't be so hard on yourself.

Content is still king.

- Mr Benja -

P.S. I'm not talking as if I'm some outgoing, social maven. I'm still working at this myself. :) 

What We're Calling Social Media Is More Like Social Telecasting

I just realized something.

Although interactive, newer social media platforms aren't really trying to connect people like before. They're not conversation platforms, but are more akin to telecasting platforms. They're set up so that everyone gets their 15 minutes and can spend money to use and access it. Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube follow this paradigm I'm calling social telecasting.

That's a different point of view from the genesis of online communication, which came from telephone and mail systems. That would be your multi-directional communication platforms like text messaging, Facebook, email, forums, Discord, and Twitter.

It's like television and radio when compared to telephone and the water cooler.

I say this after hanging around some kids and watching how they used social media. It's like they were maintaining their own unscripted reality shows via the social broadcast platforms. BUT they actually communicated via messaging apps, phone calls, and in person.

This got me thinking about how I have been using (or misusing technology). Because to have a conversation, you still need to have an audience that you are talking with and listening to, not simply broadcasting your video at.

Minor shift in thinking with possibly major ramifications for me.

People Need To See Validation, Not Just Results

After months of low-engaging posts on a topic (elsewhere, not on this blog), I decided to post a link that grossly generalized a topic to the point of lying. Everyone jumped on it as if it were fact. At that point, I realized that no one was reading and considering what I had been saying all along. They didn't believe me. BUT they believed this link from a dubious source because it "looked correct".

I really had to stop and think about that. The people that I was posting to KNOW that I have credentials and KNOW that I don't post without thinking, but that didn't seem to matter to them. This got me going on human nature again...

See, people are funny creatures. Regardless of the quality and the results of a thing, humans will require a heavy amount of weight to our requirements for validation of a thing. It's pretty amazing and a bit disconcerting.

What am I getting at?

There is no intrinsic value on it's own. That's nearly impossible.

People assign value based on many contextual factors that may have nothing to do with the actual value they purport to want. Hopefully, the truth can be gleaned from those many factors.

It's the white lab coat effect.

Scenario: If a barefoot person in jeans on the side of the street told you to take some pills they gave you, you'd probably tell that person to go to hell.

• You could know that they are a doctor on vacation
• You could validate all of their claims with a quick Google search
• You could know for yourself that the information about the pills is sound
• You could personally know the doctor in question
• You could have a valid reason why they'd have pills on them
• ...and so on. 

After all that, people still wouldn't trust them completely because they aren't wearing a white lab coat and standing in an office. That context is too strong to overcome with mere truths. Our minds would deny ourselves until we got over whatever mental barriers we had constructed. We simply wouldn't have the proper context we desire for that situation to make sense. 

Personally, I've been trying to battle this in my life, but the need for "proper context" is legitimately difficult to get around. I'm not immune to these mental barriers, I've just started trying to think about them.

I wonder what the proper context is for validation nowadays. Likes? Retweets? Influencer mentions? Guest blog posts? Podcast appearances. There seem to be a lot of them.

Understanding Tech Marketing By Understanding Velcro

When I was a kid, I saw my first pair of velcro shoes in the local shop. I was pretty fascinated, because I thought to myself, "They've done it! They've finally gotten rid of laces! No longer will the world be held back by an inferior technology! Millions of minutes will be saved by not having to tie up your shoes!"

Or so I thought.

Turns out no one wanted velcro laces. Companies stopped making them as much because they weren't selling. Since then, I've realized that the so-called "best" technology is often the loser.

Lesson? Nobody wants your logically superior shit.